NavList:

   

Reply

Rodney:

Your points are well taken and understood. The popular view (political) makes
much more sense in many ways and is easily understood as is the rollover to
odometer 00000. More technical specifics or explanations are difficult to
comprehend. The same applies to the end of the current century and beginning
of the next. I do side with the popular view as more pragmatic in this case.

Sidebar:
It seems to me that all this discussion does indirectly point out need for
astronomical computations being carried out with respect to Julian day/date,
irrespective of calendar date other than indirection through epochs. The fine
tuning through leap year and leap second, plus Terrestial Dynamic Time is
then better understood.

Tony


Rodney Myrvaagnes wrote:
>
> On Mon, 27 Dec 1999 23:55:50 -0800, Tony wrote:
>
> >Huh? Is there a nit here?? It is simply an allusion to what is
> >stated by USNO and RGO in their explanations ...which I consider
> >more authoritative. Don't you?
>
> As I said before, I regard them as authoritative with
> respect to time keeping. This includes leap second
> insertions and the like. It is important to keep date/time
> designations consistent for the use of almanacs, etc. So,
> for consistency, we agree to call this year 1999, so
> everyone will know which volume of the almanac to use for
> sight reductions, etc.
>
> If almanacs were labeled something like  "Almanac for the
> third year of the fourth century" we would need the
> timekeeping authority to publish clearly what that meant.
> Since they are never so labeled, what century or millennium
> you call this is a scientific and practical "don't care."
>
> If you, or anyone else, wishes to say that the year 19xx
> belongs to a different century than other years beginning
> with 19, I say that is your priviledge, because it has no
> consequences. The same for a year 1xxx being in a different
> millennium from other years 1xxx.
>
> The digit-flipping of Y2K has, as others have pointed out,
> the same significance as the odometer rolling over in a
> car. Celebrating a the millennium shift that occurs at a
> new year without a millennium-digit shift, is like
> celebrating 100,001 miles, which is, at least, palindromic.
> How about 2002?  :-)
>
> Rodney Myrvaagnes                   J36 Gjoa
> Associate Editor           Electronic Products
> My oyster knife is Y2K compliant

   

Reply